Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.

I certainly disagree with the "never more so" part.  Executive Order 9066 comes to mind.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I certainly disagree with the "never more so" part.  Executive Order 9066 comes to mind.

That was FDR's 1942 order to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, for those not up on their executive orders. (And yes, I had to look it up.) But Heller, Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore also come to mind . . . .

[Todd]

Fair enough, my bad. I should have written "bound by the latest 5-people-out-of-9-majority interpretation of the Constitution".

Let's see, Dale didn't sail into the Mediterranean supported by a declaration of war, and SCOTUS never wrote a word about that.  Must be more complicated than you let on.

[Todd]

That was FDR's 1942 order to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, for those not up on their executive orders. (And yes, I had to look it up.) But Heller, Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore also come to mind . . . .

Interesting, you are attempting to equate three court decisions, following standard judicial process, to the imprisonment of over 100,000 people without due process.  Hmm.  How about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863?  Is that as egregious as Scalia's opinions?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Interesting, you are attempting to equate three court decisions, following standard judicial process, to the imprisonment of over 100,000 people without due process.  Hmm.  How about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863?  Is that as egregious as Scalia's opinions?

It's not a competition, Todd, and you know it. Should we start a poll for "your top 5 Constitutional violations in American history"? Suffice it to say there's plenty of blame to go around from each of the three branches.

[Florestan]

Let's see, Dale didn't sail into the Mediterranean supported by a declaration of war, and SCOTUS never wrote a word about that.  Must be more complicated than you let on.

No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.

[Todd]

It's not a competition, Todd, and you know it. Should we start a poll for "your top 5 Constitutional violations in American history"? Suffice it to say there's plenty of blame to go around from each of the three branches.

Start a poll if you wish. 

There is certainly blame to go around (Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind on the judicial side), but you mention decisions that were decided according to standard judicial processes.  You disagree with them, I get that, but that doesn't mean that they are egregious or anti-constitutional or contrary to existing political processes, except maybe Bush v Gore.  The specific acts I mentioned were.  And it is always the Executive branch that poses the greatest danger when it comes to subverting or ignoring restraints imposed by the Constitution.  A decision can be overturned; years spent unjustly imprisoned cannot be returned, and the dead cannot rise from the grave, with one possible exception.

No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.

Yes, there you are, now having mounted your hobby horse.  And now you've thrown in a major error as it pertains to US law.  SCOTUS decisions, Marbury v Madison possibly aside, do not affect the entire legal fabric of the nation.  There are literally thousands of laws across the country that SCOTUS decisions do not influence, and some Constitutional rights still do not apply to states.  You don't have your facts right, and that does call into question your assertion about the worth of a constitution.

[Brian]

No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.

In addition to Todd's valid critique, there are more points to argue with here. The government is deliberately divided into three separate entities to ensure that if one overlooks or ignores the Constitution, another will stop it. The times in history when all three bodies of federal government have joined in a common abandonment of constitutional principle have been very rare and dramatic.

Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.

[Florestan]

The times in history when all three bodies of federal government have joined in a common abandonment of constitutional principle have been very rare and dramatic.

Okay, but what matters at the end of the day is which of the bodies prevails. What use is the Congress´ or the Supreme Court ´s declaring the unconstitutionality of this or that action of the US Government after or even as its effects are calculated in number of killed or maimed people, disrupted societies and fucked-up economies?

Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.

Okay, but what I object to is the principle, not its particular incarnations: the idea that an assembly, be it elected or self-appointed, of only a tiny fraction of the whole people, acting in accordance with all the prejudices and limitations of their time, can legislate for all future generations, which are bound to act, albeit losely, within the limits set by the said assembly and as interpreted by another assembly, much more tinier than the original one and whose composition is heavily influenced by the transient political situation of the country at this or that moment --- and legislate in such a manner as to make any essential change virtually impossible.

[Florestan]

it is always the Executive branch that poses the greatest danger when it comes to subverting or ignoring restraints imposed by the Constitution.  A decision can be overturned; years spent unjustly imprisoned cannot be returned, and the dead cannot rise from the grave[...].

Hear, hear!

[Todd]

Okay, but what I object to is the principle, not its particular incarnations: the idea that an assembly, be it elected or self-appointed, of only a tiny fraction of the whole people, acting in accordance with all the prejudices and limitations of their time, can legislate for all future generations, which are bound to act, albeit losely, within the limits set by the said assembly and as interpreted by another assembly, much more tinier than the original one and whose composition is heavily influenced by the transient political situation of the country at this or that moment --- and legislate in such a manner as to make any essential change virtually impossible.

Legislation is amended or superseded all the time, every session, at every level of government, at least in the US.  A set of governing principles and limitations included in the Constitution, or a constitution, does not preclude that at all.  Very, very few laws face judicial scrutiny.  It is only contentious ones that do, and it is precisely those that a judiciary should hear.

[(poco) Sforzando]

except maybe Bush v Gore.

Good heavens, a partial (if grudging) concession from Todd! This calls for a celebration. I will almost refrain from posting here for the next couple of days as a result (which I can't do anyway, as I have other plans).

[(poco) Sforzando]

Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.

That may be, Brian, but not all decisions are of equal consequence, and on some of the most important ones, the 5-4 split has obtained.

[Todd]

The field thins by one.

[Sammy]

     The disintegration of of the Repub party was preceded by the derangement of what is charitably called the Repub mind. There's an explanation for the Trump phenomenon and that's it. Repubs are no more clued in than anyone else about what it is to be "us" and not "them". The remnants of Repub leadership hate the frontrunner and hate the strongest challenger even more. Kasich and Rubio have strength in pinprick spots here and there, but they no longer matter. Cruz will not benefit from further winnowing of the field.

      What's said in private will soon be said in public. The movement of Repubs to Hillary is beginning and will pick up steam. The choice will be stay at home or vote for the Queen of Hell, an increasingly attractive choice in relative terms.

There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico.  He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete.  He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work.  Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.

[Gurn Blanston]

There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico.  He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete.  He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work.  Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.

Can I vote for him too? 

[Sergeant Rock]

Can I vote for him too? 

He has my vote too...that's three. How many electoral votes is that? 

Sarge

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico.  He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete.  He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work.  Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.

I voted for him in 2012 as a protest vote, and also because he scored highest for me on one of those "I Side With" questionnaires. I think libertarianism is a naive ideology, but Libertarians are good for protest votes if nothing else.

I just took the "I Side With" quiz for this year, and my top 3 results were Sanders (85%), Jill Stein (80%) and Trump (75%). My lowest was Carson at 60%.

[drogulus]

      Yes, there are other choices, for example:

     

     

[Sammy]

He has my vote too...that's three. How many electoral votes is that? 

Sarge

Hey, I'm starting to notice a Gary Johnson for President surge - start your engines!  It's a pity the man has zero charisma.